Origin stories

Industrialization changed a lot about the world—sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly. New production and transportation methods are some of the most obvious examples. However, the effects were even more far-reaching and touched almost every part of society. The way the government worked, the family, the workday, how kids spent their time, how long people lived, what they ate… all of it changed.

One of the biggest debates about the Industrial Revolution is about where it all began. This shouldn’t really be hard to figure out, right? But two big questions about the Industrial Revolution’s birthplace remain. The first is the “scale” of the “where” industrialization actually happened first. If we wanted to study that first industrial change, would we be looking at one city? At one country? At a specific continent? The second question is the “why” industrialization happened there. Would those reasons be local or global in scale?

The scale of the first industrialization

Industrialization is a big, complex idea, but its history is visible to the eye. We can see the first steam-powered machines doing the work previously performed by people and animals. We can see the steam engine invented by James Watt. We can see Richard Arkwright’s machine for spinning thread. We can see the first steam-powered factories, like the Coalbrookdale ironworks and the Lancashire textile works. Interestingly, all of these developments happened in Great Britain, a small island country. Most of them took place over the course of the eighteenth century.

However, soon after factories sprang up in mainland Europe. Machine-powered industries also took root in North America, specifically in the United States. In general, most historians now agree that Great Britain was the place where the Industrial Revolution began.

Local causes of the first industrialization

Historians, though, often disagree about why it happened first in Britain. We will focus on two positions in this debate: local factors versus global factors.

Let’s begin with the argument that it was Britain’s unique local conditions that caused the country to be the first to industrialize. Consider the nation’s geography. As an island, Britain was easy to defend and relatively peaceful—at least in the modern era. It was also pretty flat, making it easy to transport goods. Transportation is an important factor in successful industrialization. Canals and railroads were needed for carrying coal to the cities and factories where it was used as fuel. Plus, Britain’s land was lucky to have a lot of coal available. Contrast these conditions to the vast area of China. That country’s coal was far from cities where factories were likely to be built.

Britain also had a population that was expanding rapidly in the eighteenth century. Death rates fell as birthrates rose. In other words, there were enough workers to operate factory machines. Why? Partly because merchants were buying farms. That meant a lot of farmers switched to factory work.

You might be asking, “With so many people switching to factory work, how were they still growing enough food?” The answer is the agricultural revolution. Improved farm productivity preceded modern factories. In the 1600s and 1700s, new tools and practices allowed fewer farmers to grow more food. These developments took place in Britain earlier and more rapidly than in other parts of the world.

These economic and social factors changed how people’s needs were met. Workers spent all of their time in a factory, doing a specific job. They no longer had the time to make their own goods, such as clothing and furniture. They had to buy stuff that was made in—you guessed it—factories. These changing needs, in turn, led to more industrialization. But factory workers’ demand for stuff was nothing compared to the demand of a growing middle class. This group consisted mostly of merchants and professionals. They had more money and wanted even more factory-made goods.

Importantly, this developing British middle class also had political power. New laws were passed protecting property and favoring industry. This made it safer to invest in industries in Britain than elsewhere. The wealthier classes also had money to invest in innovation and funded many of the innovations that drove industrialization.

Global causes of the first industrialization

These local factors may have made industrialization more likely in Britain, but some scholars disagree. They argue that Britain’s global presence was a more important factor.

Certainly, Britain’s global empire played a role. British merchants and leaders had made a lot of money from the Atlantic trade in enslaved people and the plantation system. They could invest that money in inventions and factories.

British colonies were important sources of raw materials for British industry. The Industrial Revolution would have been different without lumber from North America or wool from Australia. The colonies also supplied food for the British people. Would Britain have been able to feed its people without Caribbean sugar and North Atlantic cod?

Finally, trade propelled British industrial production. By the early 1800s, Britain was perhaps the world’s greatest trading power. Its overseas colonies were ready markets for its exports, especially textiles. The British navy had the power to protect merchant ships. British ports expanded rapidly in Liverpool, London, Glasgow and elsewhere. Railways also branched out. They were needed to move goods and resources between these ports and industrial centers.

So was Britain’s leading role in the Industrial Revolution the result of local or global factors? It is more likely that both of these factors contributed. Looking at history from different scales and perspectives helps us to develop a more complete understanding of the past.